2000 03-14MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 14, 2000
The regular scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to
order at 7 p.m. by Chairman Keith Borup.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Keith Borup, Thomas Barbeiro, Richard Hatcher, Sally Norton.
OTHERS PRESENT: Steve Siddoway, Bruce Freckleton, David Swartley, Will Berg.
Borup: I’d like to begin our regularly scheduled meeting of Planning and Zoning
Commission. Note that attendance of Commissioner's, Sally Norton, Richard Hatcher,
Thomas Barbeiro and Keith Borup. Kent Brown is absent at this point. He will be
coming in later. We do have some information that we are going to need to go over.
Let’s go ahead and handle the consent agenda, the minutes first. Commissioner's, any
comments.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve in total the minutes from February 8,
2000 meeting and the February 22, 2000 meeting as written.
Hatcher: I second the motion.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Thank you. Before we begin this evening, I do need to mention we got a pretty
major change in the agenda. There were several applicants that had failed to do the
proper notification on the property. This is one of the legal procedures that we need to
comply with. Because of that, the only items that we will be hearing this evening is 1
through 4. If anyone is here for any of the other ones, those hearings won’t even be
opened. They will not be heard this evening. At this point, the plan is, assuming that
we can have a quorum for the Commissioner's, and right now we think we will, is that
Item number 5 and Item number 7 will be heard on the 3rd
of April and the remainder of
the items will be on the 11th
of April, which is our regular meeting. Part of the problem
on doing anything other then that was again legal notice in the paper and that was all
that could be accommodated. If there is anyone here that had or was here to testify on
any of those and not be able to make those other dates, you are invited to turn in any
written testimony you’d like to. That would become part of the record and will be read
and considered by the Commission also. Again, I apologize for not being able to have
sooner notice. This was something that wasn’t know about until yesterday. Thank you.
Okay Item one.
1. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING CONTINUING
CARE RETIREMENT COMMUNITY, SINGLE AND MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL AND OFFICE AND RETAIL USE BY TOUCHMARK LIVING
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
March 14, 2000
Page 2
CENTERS/JOSEPH A. BILLIG –EAST OF EAGLE ROAD (ST. LUKE’S)
BETWEEN FRANKLIN ROAD AND I-84:
Borup: This application was continued last time to give staff an opportunity to review in
more detail the application and site plan, etc. Steve would you have additional report
on this application.
Siddoway: Yes. Chairman Borup and Commissioner's probably intimately familiar with
the location of the site now. Up on the screen we have the vicinity map, if there are any
members of the audience unfamiliar with it. Will, can I get a pointer. Anyway, the blue
square sitting along the road is –got a pointer right here. This area right here is the St.
Luke’s Regional Medical Center. Montvue Subdivision sits to the north. This is Eagle
Road and Franklin Road. All of this cross hashed area is part of the annexation for the
Touchmark Living Center. This is a photo of the site taken from near St. Luke's looking
toward the east. This is also basically taken from the same place, looking toward the
freeway. This is the site plan for the site. A little bit difficult to understand, I realize with
all the information that is on here. The network of public street here and private streets
with their main facility located in this area right here. They call it continuing care
retirement CCRC community care retirement community. It will be a project with
several phases and different housing types from cottage to single family residences.
Alley loaded lots and multi family housing, town houses, etc. and all under one
ownership. The plan at this time is not to provide a plat to the city for this project, that
all of these homes be owned and maintained by Touchmark Living Centers. We tabled
this item last time so that staff could do a detailed review of the phase one issues. They
had been submitted just prior to the last hearing. As directed by the Planning and
Zoning Commission the staff did meet with the Touchmark Living Center folks to go over
the issues with the site. You have our new staff report for this project that is dated
February 29, 2000. A lengthy staff report. I won’t go through the whole thing. I’d like to
draw your attention to page 7 with the staff recommendation. We have a list of things
there that we requested to be submitted to you for review by last week. You should
have received them in your packets here at City Hall last Friday. They have submitted
the landscape plan with the concept along Franklin Road. You can see it here along the
top. They were missing a tree plant along there. They have submitted a list of typical
tree species which is fine in our estimation. The asphalt calculations in the locations of
3 inch caliper trees, had some questions remaining that can be worked out between us
and them in the site plan review process. They have agreed in the site plan that all the
parking lot trees will be 3 inch caliper and the street trees will be a minimum of 2 inch
caliper. They will be meeting our ordinance for one 3 inch caliper tree per 1500 square
feet of asphalt. That asphalt for this CCRC is to measured from the loop road, the loop
road goes around the main facility here and will include the asphalt of the entry drive
and the parking areas that service that facility. Signage details have been submitted.
They are also in the packets. We wanted to note that the maximum sign height that
they are showing for information signage for the CCRC is 6 feet. They also have some
directional signage details in there, all of which staff concurs with on conceptual level.
The one issue that needs clarification by the application tonight is their phasing plan. If
you’ll notice on the phasing plan, there are several areas noted as phase one. I don’t
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
March 14, 2000
Page 3
have a graphic of this, I’m sorry. If you do have one to pull out it is on --I’ll talk while
you are looking. The phasing plan does show areas of phase one and phase two up to
phases 3, 4 maybe even 5 for your review and comment. That was requested by the
Commission for your review at the last meeting. They have submitted that. As staff,
our comments are that the RV storage and that the maintenance facility that should
show be included be a part of phase one, show up under phase two. We’d like to see
that become part of phase one as well as the fencing for it along I-84. There is also a
phase one section of –this area right here is the RV storage and maintenance facilities.
They are currently being shown outside of phase one. We’d like to have them part of
phase one. There was also some areas in the entry that are shown on one plan as part
of their phase one development plan, but the lines don’t bend out to include that. The
other real issue is the office, medical complex here. On the phasing plan it also shows
up as phase one. We have received nothing about details on that being part of phase
one. In brief conversation briefly before the meeting which I think they will address, I
think they were planning to show phases for the residential and phases for the office
commercial. This conditional use permit, just to make it clear, will it does not give
approval for the phase one of the office medical use. It is for phase one, as noted as
the entry drive coming in, the first phase of the CCRC and then the cottage homes
along the freeway in this area. That is phase one application that we are reviewing at
this time. The other item of confusion last time was on the total number of units. There
is a range of units that is shown on the plan. There obviously a certain number of units
on the plan, where does this plan fall into the range. There is in the packet of
information submitted to you a letter where they are requesting final approval for a
maximum of 400 units of what they call cottage products, and I assume that that
includes all residential, single family, multi family not just cottage homes. That is all of
the residential and then approval for 282 units in the CCRC. The building height
needed to be noted because the maximum building height in an LO zone is 35 feet.
The CCRC I believe goes up to 48 feet. They are requesting on their plans which you
have in front of you a maximum of 50 feet. St. Luke's to the east was recently approved
for 108 feet in the same zone. I don’t see that as a major issue either. That is all I have
at this point for my staff report. I’d be happy to answer any questions.
Borup: Any of the Commissioner's have any questions for Steve. So, summary version
is, at this point you are comfortable with everything—just small details that need to be
worked out.
Siddoway: The details about the phasing need to be addressed.
Borup: Okay. Is the applicant or representative here this evening.
Billig: Good evening. Joseph Billig, Portland Oregon. I apologize for the confusion on
the phasing. What we had intended was, as staff had approved and been reviewing all
along, we would like to do our medical office in a phasing but we are not asking for it in
conditional use permit approval of medical office at this time. I can see there was some
confusion because we had cottages, residential areas developed as phase I, II, III to
CCRC and the medical office as well. At this point, we are just asking for approval for
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
March 14, 2000
Page 4
Phase I of the CCRC and Phase I of the residential cottage products. We would also
concur and include the maintenance and RV storage in phase I as well –as well as
addressing the issues of fencing, I had thought we did include the fencing along 84 in
Phase I, but there is—
Siddoway: You included it on the base of the cottage homes, but then you showed
phasing along here in phase II.
Billig: Okay, we will run that out to the property line as well as deal with the fencing on
any issues you have up at the Franklin entry there.
Borup: So Joe, your intention for phase I would be what is marked on our plat as
phase—well the two phase one’s marked (inaudible) medical center phase one is not—
Billig: Right, we would come back on this separate conditional use permit application
for that.
Borup: Your intending to do that sooner than later. You don’t have a phase number at
this point.
Billig: Right, right.
Borup: Where would that be anticipated that would come in comparison with the
others.
Billig: I would say probably looking at hopefully maybe in October, construction start
on—what we are seeking for tonight and then maybe another 6 months to a year after
that for medical office phase one.
Borup: So that would probably come before the phase two.
Billig: Oh yeah. Before the phase two of the CCRC and residential.
Borup: Well you got three areas designated as phase two.
Billig: Right. Those would come before the phase two. That is correct.
Borup: Okay, thank you. Any questions from the Commissioner's.
Barbeiro: Mr. Billig, if I count this out, I am counting about 9 phases, but there is really
probably 6 phases. It is a little confusing while I was going through this, because I
thought we were going to have 6, but that did not make sense. In your review of the
notes from our staff, are there anything here that are outside of the discussion that we
had during our last meeting that you have concerns about.
Billig: No. We are in agreement with staff’s comments and will incorporate all those.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
March 14, 2000
Page 5
Norton: I have one quick question. Number 27 of staff’s notes regarding –excuse me.
26 regarding the land swap must be finalized. How are you coming on the land swap?
Billig: Maybe it would be better if I had one of my colleagues talk about that.
Neil: Bernie Neil. Touchmark Living Centers. We are making good progress. We have
had several meetings on the issue. We have a letter agreement, which I think is part of
the submittals that have come to you earlier. The specific that are mentioned in that
agreement are remaining in place and specifically the cross access is agreeable to both
parties and we are at the same time, for your information, the Ada County Highway
District –we have also been working on a development agreement and we have
accomplished a draft of that, which has been reviewed now by all three parties and we
have a general agreement in that we have a further meeting to iron out any other
questions that we may have, but I think that draft agreement does cover all the issues
that we spoke to in this meeting two weeks ago and does cover the issue of cross
access and does satisfy the highway district. They have been the ones to draft that
agreement, so both St. Luke's have reviewed that and we have revised that and in
principle we are in agreement. We have not come back to talk about it again, but that
progress has been made and then in our agreement directly with St. Luke's on the
property swap, as you questioned and the cross access that comes in that in our
agreement with St. Luke's, we have written the draft documents. We have drafted
those. Submitted them to St. Luke's and just today received back their responses to
those. We don’t see any deal killers in that. Hate to let that out in front of St. Luke's,
but we don’t see any deal killers in that so will be finishing that soon.
Borup: Thank you Mr. Neil. Mr. Billig, did you finish. Any questions from
Commissioner's? Okay. I’d like to open up for public testimony at this point we did
receive of course extensive testimony at our last meeting. What we are interested to
night is anything new that has not been heard and considered. Do we have anyone
here that would like to come forward. For the record, we did receive a letter from John
McCreedy and that is part of our packet and part of the record also.
Hoalst: I’m Wesley Hoalst, 385 Montvue Drive. Commissioner’s I address you tonight
because it seems all the parties are agreeing except for those who are affected most.
That happens to be residential within the Montvue Subdivision. The big mistake was
made back in 1992. That has never been corrected. There is not a governmental body
yet willing to accept and make the change of this mistake that was made. That was,
allowing a private road. St. Luke's has been dictating all of the actions, even –
Borup: Sir, we’d like to limit this to the Touchmark application. That is all we are really
under consideration tonight.
Hoalst: It does have to do with the entrance into St. Luke's entry of which, if we go back
to that first slide giving the area, if you would please. You’ll notice right there at the
northeast corner, there is 10 acres there that is going to be exchanged. There has
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
March 14, 2000
Page 6
been no definite acceptance by or any indication that because St. Luke's owns that,
there is not any agreements that I can find that there will be a roads coming from
Touchmark over to Montvue.
Borup: Yes there is. We spent hours last time discussing that very item. That is part of
their plat and they—
Hoalst: A part of Touchmark plat but it does not show up in the agreements in the
exchange of the property.
Borup: Then if that doesn’t happen, then that property will not be annexed, as was just
testified earlier. That is one of the conditions.
Hoalst: Okay, then in the agreements between or the suggested cooperative
development, local streets and Touchmark. It does say that there will be a public street
out to Franklin Road. That is what the agreement is, is that correct? All right, then
there would be a public street around to St. Luke's property. Is that correct?
Borup: I believe that is what the Commissioner’s agree with that. It would be up to the
gated areas and—
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, the proposal—the public street would come in here as a
round about and comes in here to a second round about. The back side of this round
about is a gate. All of this road on the way out is public, as well as the connection stub
that connects to Montvue right at this location. The other streets are private with the
exception of, there is an entrance in here that is public, I believe there is a round about
there also, but it is gated right at this location also to give people access into this future
commercial area. The streets through here are proposed to be private with the access
to Montvue’s public and there is no public access on this plan that goes to St. Luke's.
There is a connection to St. Luke's right here. It is also gated and would be private.
Hoalst: Where does the public road come in that goes to St. Luke's. Does that connect
over to the round about, the second round about in.
Borup: There is no public road from St. Luke's.
Hatcher: ACHD, one of their requirements from the conditional use permit was that
there would be a public through access. Not a public road, but a public through access.
What you see on the overhead right now Steve is the northeast corner of the proposed
property for St. Luke's at the land swap. Right down, down, down to the right, more.
Go up from there. Right in that area where you see the two arrows, that is a public
through access. What was proposed two weeks ago was this turn about right here
would be gated off, keeping the public out of these private roads. But, once this area
right here was developed, there would be public through access through this
development which is medical offices to this turn around, which would also be gated off.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
March 14, 2000
Page 7
This was not, if ever, I do not believe, correct me if I am wrong, was ever intended to be
a public street, only a public through access.
Hoalst: What’s the difference?
Hatcher: The difference is that would still be land owned private land with public
access. In other words, you, me or anybody here could drive through there with out
being hindered by gates. We could for all intent purposes wanted to when this is
completely developed, come down through here, drive around through this
development and coming to St. Luke's without ever coming around this direction.
Borup: And your tax dollars would not be paying for its maintenance.
Hatcher: That is correct. We could still get through there but the whole purpose was to
alleviate any cut through traffic. That is the difference between putting a public road
versus a public through access at that location. That was what currently presented to
us two weeks ago.
Hoalst: There has never been the opportunity I don’t believe to recognize the Montvue
in its full capacity, being able to travel in and out. That road, the indication of that public
road to Franklin Road, how does that—
Hatcher: The Montvue Subdivision currently at this point with what is being proposed
by Touchmark, has a public street stubbed into it right at that point. At that point right
there, the entire Subdivision of Montvue has public access to Franklin Road with public
streets. Right there. It will be up to the Montvue Subdivision to make the connection to
that public street.
Hoalst: In the (inaudible) development agreement, design and construction, on 1.3 it
says the location configuration of the private vehicular connection of the Touchmark
Living Center project through the adjoining property of St. Luke's Hospital, to the traffic
signal on Eagle Road providing access to St. Luke's hospital campus as shown in
exhibit C is approved by ACHD. Private vehicular. So if Montvue Drive would bring a
moving truck in, we’d be in violation.
Borup: What was your question sir.
Hoalst: Well it says a private vehicular connection.
Borup: Yes the road is a private road.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: These are all items we covered last time. We are kind of going over old ground
here.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
March 14, 2000
Page 8
Hoalst: Well I guess we are because we haven’t been recognized and satisfied
because nobody will take the initiative to solve the real problem that is (inaudible) on
Eagle Road.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman. What I’d like to do, I’d like you to take a set of plans tonight
and give you a chance to come back and discuss this for a moment. If we could have
the Touchmark representative come up and explain it from their (inaudible) as opposed
to we’re trying to explain it. That will allow Wes to have the plans in front of him while
they explain what they are doing up here and give—
Borup: Let me cut through to what—Mr. Hoalst are you, sounds like what your saying is
you want access to St. Luke's private drive rather then to any other access point.
Hoalst: Well it was by this body agreed to at one time there would be a entrance from
Montvue Drive and that was recommended because the highway district did want a
setback from the traffic light on Eagle Road and this body did agree to that. Then it
went to the City Council and some more power prevailed and was turned down.
Borup: Maybe that’s where you need to address your comments to then.
Hoalst: Well that is why I am addressing it here. We have to go through the process, I
understand. We are still looking to solve our problems.
Borup: Well, previously you said your problem was you wanted to access out of your
Subdivision. That has been provided in this design. Now your saying you want better
access.
Hoalst: Well we want—we will be closed out one of these days. So yes we are
covering all ground and we keep bringing it up as long as we can we’re going to keep
bringing it up.
Barbeiro: Wes, would you like to take these plans.
Hoalst: Sure.
Borup: Any one else who would like to come forward.
Fuss: Jeff Fuss. 324 E. Montvue Drive. I just had a quick question. On the public
access stub out coming into Montvue, I was wondering when we get a chance to
address the location of that. My last chat with Mr. Sale he said that really they did not
care. That was up to us and Touchmark to work out. Currently where they have it
stubbed, I don’t know if you have a plat of our Subdivision, but you can over lay with
that. In order for us to stub into it we have to condemn 2 houses.
Borup: My recollection that was close to 2 property lines.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
March 14, 2000
Page 9
Fuss: Yes it runs right (inaudible) property line, the last view we were showed. The
problem with that is there is a well that sits about 5 feet off of that line. There is a
garage. And, for the adjoining property the garage sits about 15 feet off the line.
Borup: Is there another location that’s been expressed that would be better?
Fuss: Really, we haven’t had a chance to talk about it.
Borup: Maybe that’s what you need to do then. There has been a lot of talk about
other things. If this is important to you then maybe that is what you need to focus in on
instead of all this other stuff that we can’t do anything about. This is something that
something can be done about.
Fuss: That’s why I am asking the question. When do we get a chance to talk about it,
because as of yet, we haven’t had a chance where this has been brought up and
shown. This is exactly where the street is going to go in and had a chance to make
comment on whether or not how well that suits things. Didn’t have a chance at ACHD
because there weren’t any plans. This is the next step in the line. Now that we’ve seen
plans and they are showing exactly where it is going to stub in. We need to address it
at some point I guess.
Barbeiro: Do you have a copy of your plat here today with you that you could then go
back on the plans that I have given to Wes and you could fairly well configure it while
you’re here this evening.
Fuss: As far as what we’d think would work better or how this fits it.
Barbeiro: So you could see about where it is coming through since you have a pretty
good sense—
Fuss: The last thing that we did get—
Hatcher: (Inaudible—away from Mic)
Barbeiro: (Inaudible—away from Mic)
Fuss: No, we have not had a chance to communicate with Touchmark on this issue.
Tonight was the first time we have seen for sure—excuse me, 2 weeks ago was the first
time we saw for sure this is where they wanted to bring this in. At ACHD this was still
up in the air and their point was, well we’re not really worried about where the road
comes in. That is up to you guys to work out. I guess at some point I ask is, when do
we make sure that this gets worked out.
Hatcher: (Inaudible—away from Mic)
Fuss: I am not quite sure procedurally of what we need to do.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
March 14, 2000
Page 10
Borup: Mr. Billig, are you the one that would be the contact person on the street layout
or—okay, maybe a comment from Mr. Neil. I assume as this point, ACHD is going to
need to approve location. At the last meeting it was stated that the access point was
flexible. You choose a point that was between two property lines because that looked
like a logical place.
Neil: Bernie Neil, Touchmark Living Centers. We had written a letter to the Montvue
neighborhood. I don’t have the date, but it is in excess of 3 months ago. It did have
this layout and had it illustrated in the same way that it is today. Our response back
from Mr. Creedy was that they were not interested. Thanks for the offer, but not
interested. We have not changed anything since that time and I am a bit mystified why
this is such a surprise while the drawing has been presented months ago—last year.
However, the exact location of where that would hook up is not a big issue to us. Our
purpose is to provide access to the Montvue neighborhood. The highway district did
have something to say about the stacking or should occur between the stop light on
Franklin Road where then we could turn off or have an intersection. In this case it is a
round about. I believe we had to be back 400 feet from the Franklin intersection so that
is where that has happened and then we have gone across to the point there where
that properties intersect. In a conversation with Mr. McCreedy, we had outlined that
prior to sending the letter. His statement was that I guess that is a good a place as any.
I can see where they have not had careful thought about that or how that would develop
their side. We are not –if it moves some feet one way or another is not a big thing to
us. If there is a substantial chance of moving further to the south by several properties,
that would be a issue. I think that we have come in the 400 feet, we’re taking care of
traffic stacking issues, so making their property very accessible and then we are taking
the shortest route across. It does have some alignments with the circle that they have
within their property and running along a property line would seem to mean that
somebody did not have to give up their house, that they ought to figure out an access
that would run between the houses.
Barbeiro: If this is acceptable to Mr. Neil and Mr. Billig, we have here residents from the
Montvue Subdivision and the developer owner. With out the muddling of an
intermediary counsel, do we have the opportunity here to allow them to remain –keep
our public hearing open, allow the owners and developers to find a room here.
Hatcher: Your asking for trouble. Your asking for legal trouble. After the meeting is one
thing but not during the public hearing.
Barbeiro: Our legal counsel advised against doing that during a public hearing.
Borup: This location is in phase 2. Is that correct?
Neil: That is correct. Phase 2 of the office, medical office. The construction of this
access though happens with the construction of the public street.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
March 14, 2000
Page 11
Siddoway: It does run though what is shown as phase 2, but the connection to
Montvue is actually planned to be part of this phase. Phase 1 is up for tonight.
Hatcher: What if we were to take and modify the phase 1 and have the turn around as
the termination point and not put the stub into Montvue until phase 2. That way the
applicant and Montvue can work it out between now and phase 2.
Siddoway: And, the location of that stub access would become part of that next
conditional use permit. I don’t see an issue with that. It would really be—I think the
Touchmark folks are trying to give them access now, but I don’t want to speak for them
but I don’t know that it would matter if it were right now or phase 2.
Barbeiro: Mr. Billig, in this (inaudible) for the moment, you would not object to moving
that road perhaps 100 feet. That is about—you said you don’t want to move several
property lines, but 100 feet really would not be a –
Neil: That’s correct.
Barbeiro: Okay. That gives me an idea –allows the residents—100 foot move one way
or the other is open for discussion.
Neil: That’s acceptable.
Hatcher: Can I understand that question a little bit more? Would you be willing to go
from the north side of one property to the south side. Like 200 to 300 feet.
Neil: Let’s see what we are talking about here.
Hatcher: Looking on this drawing what you currently see is separating this property
line. If it was set at this property line, south of this house, coming from this turn about,
maybe down in through here, then no buildings would be disturbed. We’d have to work
with the lateral drainage here but you have this open area that might appease the
Montvue Subdivision. So your looking 200 to 300 feet. That way the Subdivision then
–
Neil: I think what we would be willing is that and we had also suggested this to the
Montvue neighborhood, would be another likely access point. Could be where the
drainage—the irrigation easement would be. If they wanted to use that easement area,
they could do that. I think that would be our statement would be that we would either do
as we have drawn and come in at this location or come in at the irrigation easement
point.
Hatcher: It could be a minor change. (Inaudible) and give them what they are hopefully
looking for as public access with minimal impact to their existing structures.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
March 14, 2000
Page 12
Neil: Yes. We really need to get the owners of these two involved also and they are not
here tonight. That would seem reasonable. Their problem there was with the setback
from ACHD. This satisfies the 400 foot stacking from the Franklin intersection.
Hatcher: As far as the application that is in front of us tonight, it would be up to the
applicant I guess whether you wanted to install this hub as is and put this to phase 2 or
END OF SIDE ONE
Hatcher: possibly taking the whole thing and sliding it down. That is completely up to
you.
Neil: We would be satisfied with having this coordination happen prior to the granting of
phase 2.
Hatcher: To kind of sum up this little side bar meeting since we are all looking at one
little set of drawings. To sum it up, the public access road going from the hub -–rom this
turn around hub west, this section of public road is going to be removed from the phase
1 application presented to us tonight and be moved into the phase 2 application which
will occur in 6 to 12 months, whenever the applicant brings it back to us. Giving them
time from now until then to realign the road coming from this hub more down to a
location down here where drainage easement occurs, which will then in turn not be in
conflict with the houses that are currently at the present location. So then Montvue will
have a public access and not effect any of the existing buildings.
Borup: Okay, anything else? Was that a pretty accurate summary Mr. Neil.
Neil: Yes, thank you very much.
Borup: Did that answer your question Mr. Fuss. Okay. Any one else like to come
forward.
Griffith: Tricia Griffith, 3295 N. Montvue Drive. I know you are getting tired of hearing
us come up here and probably say the same thing over and over, but sometimes we
don’t feel that anybody is listening to us so we have to keep on repeating ourselves. I’d
like the courtesy of my friends and neighbors to have an opportunity to speak their
minds and to say what they want to. The reason on some of this stuff, Touchmark
wanted private roads. It took a while before what was decided was public or private
roads and that is why a lot of this stuff was up in the air, I feel. Up on the map, on the
corner of St. Luke's Drive Touchmark land swap Montvue, right there with the arrow, it
says card access gate. I think on the big map, on the first one, it doesn’t mention
anything about that but it does on there and some of the other maps behind it, so I don’t
know if they were planning to put a card access gate between there or not.
Borup: Does it make any difference to your neighbors. Is that even pertinent to what
Montvue wants?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
March 14, 2000
Page 13
Griffith: Well I just wanted to know why it’s there. If you have lots of emergencies and
that, I know everybody probably in Touchmark will have access to it, but what’s the
difference with the Montvue people having access to it if they are going to put one there
too. If your going to have a card or something that’s kind of my opinion. Is it just
restricted to certain people? It is up there so…
Barbeiro: I believe that the area your looking at there will be a parking lot for another
medical office complex. I can only guess, I’ll look for Mr. Billig’s nodding, that any
medical office complex should somebody in that medical office be in an emergency
situation that would allow them to get out immediately to St. Luke's for emergency care.
It is not a driveway or a path it is a parking lot for a medical office complex.
Griffith: Okay, so if anybody on this side of our Subdivision had an emergency, we
couldn’t get out on Eagle Road and we did not have a card to access, we would have to
go all the way around to get to St. Luke's. We couldn’t go right through there?
Barbeiro: The way that it is drawn now—
Griffith: So that’s not really protecting our citizens I don’t feel and if there was an
emergency right there for us.
Borup: You need to sum up.
Griffith: I really don’t have any thing else to say. Thanks.
Borup: Okay, anyone else? This is your opportunity. Okay, seeing none,
Commissioner's any questions for anybody at this point. The applicant have any
concluding remarks. Staff have any final comments.
Siddoway: No comments. I would only like to point out that our staff comments posed
several questions that were responded to by Touchmark, so we concur with the
responses in those letters that answer our questions so, if you were to make a motion,
just based on adopting staff comments, you’d be adopting a lot of questions. You would
also need to reference the letter from Touchmark dated March 6, 2000 and the letter
from Briggs Engineering dated March 9, 2000. Those are the responses to the
questions that were outstanding in our staff report.
Borup: The phasing question, is that answered to your satisfaction?
Siddoway: Yeah. You may want to note that the phase 1 of the office complex is not
part of this application and will require a new CUP as an additional phase.
Borup: Okay, thank you. Commissioner's what’s your pleasure at this point.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman I motion that we close the public hearing.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
March 14, 2000
Page 14
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
Borup: Motion and second, all in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Is there some discussion we’d like to proceed with or ready for a motion.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to make note of the hand delivered letter from Jim
Jones and Associates for the Montvue Subdivision residents that was received
yesterday and we received it today making it greatly impossible to review this with our
utmost care.
Borup: That was the letter I made reference to. I believe the new part of his letter was
just those first couple pages. The other was copies of information we all ready had on
some of the other agreements or duplicates of information we all ready had in our
packets, so I think essentially that his cover letter for that was the new information. Do
you have a comment.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I move or I’d like to make a motion that we recommend
approval for the Touchmark Living Center submitted by Joseph A. Billig, east of Eagle
Road between Franklin Road and I-84, to include all of staff comments including the
response letter from Touchmark, the applicant dated March 6th
and Briggs Engineering
dated March 9th
both in the year 2000. I’d like to add to that a statement that what was
currently submitted as phase 1 office park not be in phase 1 application and that the
phase one public road stub into Montvue Subdivision from the first turn about also not
be included in phase 1 and be moved to phase 2 for future coordination with Montvue
Subdivision.
Barbeiro: I will second the motion.
Borup: Motion and second, any discussion? Sounds like everybody is comfortable with
that motion. All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Thank you and thank everybody here. Okay, we like to move on to Item 2 and
again I’d like to make mention that Commissioner Brown has joined us and also in case
anyone has come in late, Items 5 through 11 will not be heard this evening if anyone is
here for that. 5 and 7 have been moved to the 3rd
of April and the other to the 11th
of
April.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
March 14, 2000
Page 15
2. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
PROPOSED 1800 SF HOME/OFFICE TO BE USED AS OFFICE SPACE
ZONED C-N BY C.W. CONSTRUCTION, INC. –BARRETT DRIVE &
CRESTWOOD:
Borup: Steve does staff have a presentation on this application.
Siddoway: You bet I do Chairman Borup. This is the application for C.W. Construction.
The vicinity map is on the wall. It’s in this area right here that appears darker then the
surrounding areas. Its at the intersection of Barrett Drive and Crestwood Drive in the
Crestwood Subdivision which is just off the intersection of Franklin Road and Linder.
This is an area currently zoned CN, which is neighborhood commercial, all ready
annexed and zoned as such. To the north of this parcel up in this area we have tennis
courts and RV parking that are used by the homeowners association of Crestwood
Estates and the CN property to the north of it here is still currently vacant. On the south
in this area, there is a grassy swale that serves as their storm water detention and then
you start to notice the standard residential Subdivision lots. On the west, we have an
interesting situation in that this used to be all be one large lot. ACHD took a large
chunk of that for a storm water detention pond that really created—that actually was
part of this lot and created this as a basically created an illegal split that this was a
remnant parcel of. You’ll see more of this in the photos in just a second. Here we have
a photo standing along Crestwood looking toward the intersection of Linder Road
running a long here and Franklin Road would be running along here. The ACHD
swales on the other side of this fence. This is standing from the same place, this is
Crestwood—Barrett sorry, this is Crestwood. This lot right here is the lot we are talking
about. You can see the tennis courts, you can see the RV storage there. This a view
standing on the lot looking due west at the houses across the street and then the next
shot I am going to turn a little to the right and look down the street there. This is the site
plan. Barrett Drive along here, north is up. They are proposing to move existing
structure from another location onto this property. This would be their parking areas
and they would have landscape buffers along both Barrett and Crestwood as well as
some landscape buffers between it and the tennis courts and the ACHD storm water
swale. These photos are not very good but they were what was given to us by the
applicant. We have had new ones submitted tonight. I gave them to Will Berg. If you
would pass those out. I put them up for the residents here. The idea that I wanted to
get across is that they are trying to show that it is a residential character structure with a
pitched roof and not just a standard commercial box so they would be trying to blend in
to the neighborhood. You have our full comments dated March 10th
, 2000. A couple of
highlights to point out in site specific comments. Number 5 the 20foot minimum
landscape buffers that are required are to be buffers to buffer those adjacent residential
areas that you saw from the commercial parking lot that will now be sitting on this lot.
We do have a requirement for one tree per 1500 square feet of asphalt which everyone
know, and this site plan would meet that with the 5 trees shown. We are proposing that
as a buffer between different land uses that this needs to be beefed up. The trees that
are proposed are considered in the nursery industry as class one trees. They are small
ornamental trees. Those types of trees I’d recommend to be planted the minimum of 15
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
March 14, 2000
Page 16
feet on center or if they went with larger trees which are class 2’s which also are
standard street trees, you would want to be increased to 30 on center. We would want
the increase, the number of trees along this road to provide a more visual barrier
between the parking lot and the adjacent residences. Number 11 I point out no free
standing signs have been proposed with this project. That is per the applicants own
words and we want to make it known that none are approved with this. We will approve
signage on the building itself, but any free standing signs we would consider a
significant modification to this permit and required to come back before this body. No
outdoor storage will be permitted anywhere on the lot, such as there is an open grass
area behind the building. The main tenant is a contractor. We don’t want to see this
area become a contractors yard with storage and materials that would be unsightly.
Last thing we would be requesting in number 15, I guess the current color of this
building is somewhat of a bright blue and we’d like to see it repainted to match the
colors of the surrounding neighborhood uses being that this is integral to a existing
residential area. That is all I have.
Borup: Thank you. Any questions of the Commissioner's?
Brown: I’ve got a question about the illegal land division. That kind of interests me.
When the highway district takes right of way for whatever purpose they might take it,
widening the street, then the remnant piece is illegal because of that.
Siddoway: I do not fully understand this issue, so they took it not just as a right of way
but –do you know more about this? They took the majority of lot—it wasn’t just a right
of way take (inaudible) a street. It was one large lot. They took the majority of that lot,
let me change to the picture. Let me allow Bruce to address the body. Just a second.
Freckleton: Members of the Commission, the drainage retention basin sits in this area
here. This was all one piece of property. At the time Franklin Road was—
Brown: Including the tennis courts?
Freckleton: No. No. The “L” shaped piece of property. The highway district purchased
this property from the then current owner to put in the drainage facilities. That is what
Steve is referring to as the split that we are talking to. This would be the remnant parcel
from that division.
Siddoway: So Commissioner Brown it was one parcel. The ACHD purchased a portion
of that. The remaining portion is a remnant. In addition they made two parcels—my
understanding is that it shows it became two parcels without being platted, as such.
Brown: So the parcel to the north is the illegal part that they created. We only see one
parcel to the east.
Borup: The parcel to the east is the drainage pond. Or to the west I mean. The parcel
to the east is the street.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
March 14, 2000
Page 17
Brown: There is two other pieces, one being the drainage pond—where is the other
one? Is the other one pieced to the north?
Siddoway: It was referred to me as a legal split by Shari Stiles, which is why I brought it
up because it was a strange situation that left this just a remnant. I would say that we
do not see this as an issue that would—
Brown: As a required platting if it is an illegal parcel. There going to have to do a
Subdivision after they get this conditional use permit.
Siddoway: I honestly don’t know Commissioner Brown.
Brown: From my experience in other jurisdictions, they allow, we’ll say government
entities such as the highway district, to do these kind of splits for the common good and
it was public knowledge. It was not done in the back room.
Siddoway: We would agree with that and a conversation that I had Shari when she
mentioned to me that this was a split that has occurred that left this as a on remaining –
just a remnant parcel. She did not see that as an issue that would prevent a building
permit to be given to this lot, as far as I understand.
Brown: Okay, that is interesting.
Siddoway: Confusing as best. I understand.
Borup: What kind of zoning do you need for a retention pond? Any other questions. Is
the applicant here this evening and like to come forward.
Walker: Cortland Walker. 1300 S. (Inaudible) Place in Meridian.
Borup: Is there anything you’d like to add in addition to the staff comments.
Walker: No really. Any questions for me?
Borup: He really only mentioned 3 things. The others were reviewed. You planning on
repainting the building?
Walker: Yes. That wasn’t much of an option.
Borup: The extra landscaping buffer, has you reviewed that?
Walker: Yes. You say the buffer—the some kind of retention drain there.
Borup: Well, no. On the extra—he was talking about increasing the number of trees.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
March 14, 2000
Page 18
Walker: Well, we are required to have one tree per 1500 square feet of asphalt. There
is only 4500 square feet of asphalt. The plat shows 5 on there. I don’t know how many
they want.
Borup: You haven’t reviewed this really carefully then.
Walker: I did. It sounds to me like 5 is adequate. If they want more that is fine.
Borup: They were talking on the small trees every 15 feet on the large trees every 30
feet. Is that acceptable. Mr. Brown.
Brown: Do you have anything on the staff report that you don’t agree with. Do you
agree 100 per cent with staff report.
Walker: Yes. I will comply, yes.
Borup: That is a short way to get through a hearing and really that is where our
concerns would be if there is something that needs to be discussed that may see
differently from the staff report.
Walker: My only concern is on the trees, 30 feet isn’t very far from each other. You can
only put so many in there because we are up next to the property line on one side.
We’ve got the entrance in there and so forth. We will put them where we can.
Borup: I think he is talking about in the grass area where you—
Walker: We might (inaudible—chairman talking over applicant).
Borup: Those two areas there where your all ready indicating your landscaping and—
Walker: Yeah we might have to put two more trees, that’s my guess.
Norton: Mr. Walker, could I ask what type of business you planning on doing in this
building.
Walker: At this point we might have a architectural firm that moves in with us. We have
a counselor from school that is waiting to move in. And ourselves.
Norton: What do you do sir?
Walker: I am a contractor. We will not store anything in the back yard.
Borup: Any other questions. Thank you Mr. Walker. Do we have anyone here who
would like to come forward and testify on this application.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
March 14, 2000
Page 19
Jacobs: I am Mildred Jacobs. I live right across the street from this and I just hope that
they are not going to put in big tall trees. Short ones would be fine, but I look out my
front window. I am all for it being put there, I have no problem with that. I don’t like the
dirt pile and motorcycles in it and everything, I’m really not for counseling teenagers
there either, so but I am for the building going up. I would like to see the smaller trees.
Borup: Anyone else.
Despot: I am Debbie Despot. I live at 1491 W. Crestwood directly across the street
from this thing. When we bought our home we planned on living in a Subdivision, not
any commercial –we did not plan on buying a house that looks right into a commercial
asphalt parking lot.
Borup: Are you familiar and I am not –Do you know how long this has been zoned?
Despot: No idea.
Barbeiro: Mrs. Despot, is this your property right here?
Despot: Yes it is.
Borup: Anyone else. Seeing none, does the applicant have a summary or final
comment.
Walker: In talking to Shari Stiles, she said they don’t do CN zoning anymore, so it had
to have been 10-15 years zoned as such. I don’t know how long it has been either, but
I am sure it was a long time ago.
Hatcher: I move we close the public hearing.
Barbeiro: I second.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Barbeiro: I wish to motion that we recommend to City Council approval of request for
conditional use permit for proposed 1800 SF home/office to be used as office space
zoned CN by C.W. Construction, Inc. with all staff comments.
Brown: Second.
Borup: Any discussion. All in favor.
MOTIO CARRIED: ALL AYES
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
March 14, 2000
Page 20
3. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
PROPOSED HERON BROOK TOWNHOMES SUBDIVISION—40 LOT
TOWNHOUSE PROJECT ON 3.98 ACRES IN AN R-40 ZONE BY PINNACLE
ENGINEERS, INC.—NE CORNER OF MERIDIAN ROAD AND BLUE HERON
LANE:
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, while Steve is digging through
trying to find his comments, Blue Heron Lane here comes off Meridian Road. This is
approximately ½ mile north of Cherry Lane on the east side of Meridian Road.
Waterbury Park Subdivision sits in here. The existing surrounding uses to the north of
the project is Fathergill Point Subdivision in this area. Fathergill is an R-8 Subdivision,
lot sizes ranging from 9,000 to 11,000 square feet. To the south of the project is vacant.
2.3 acre parcels zoned R-15 and two single family homes zoned R-1 Ada County and
Meridian Meat Packers Plant is down in this area. To the east of the project is
Fathergill. It is the triangular shaped piece here.
Siddoway: I have a few specifics to touch on. In referencing our staff comments dated
March 10th
, the general conference does note that general agreement with the concept
of the proposed Subdivision, it is all ready zoned R-40, which is a high density zone,
and would be appropriate for an in-fill parcel. Under the conditional use permit
comments, the common open space—this is coming through as a planned development
so the requirements for open space and things do apply. R-40 does not have the
minimum lot size density issue for us to worry about—the 25 per cent issue that we
have been having on other R-8 parcels lately. We do require the 10 percent common
open space. They seem to be well exceeding that. A couple of the –let me just
orientated you with the site a little bit with the photos. This would be a photo taken from
the intersection Blue Heron Lane and Meridian Road, looking to the northeast. They do
have a sign up announcing coming soon. This is the canal that runs along the north
side of the property and forms the triangle. This is just back up across the street to see
the full triangular piece as it exists. There is an existing house on it. It appears to being
torn down. We have here the plan for the conditional use permit. Main issues that we
point out are number 5 where they are requesting a variance from the front yard set
back. Our ordinance requires that each duplex shall have a garage capable of housing
at least two car and those are generally required to meet a 20 foot setback to allow for
driveway. They are proposing a zero foot setback and no enclosed garages. The dark
spots that you see on the map are lattice covered carports, I believe, that run out from
the building structures and the black dots that you see would be car ports, that would go
all the way out to the right of way for the street, where the driveway would usually be
but would function as their parking area. This would be a variance from our current
ordinance. Second issue is number 6. When this parcel was annexed, the annexation
ordinance requires (inaudible) a 35 foot landscape buffer along Meridian Road. We,
through this planned development, we can’t give a variance to an annexation
requirement in another annexation ordinance so we don’t have a great answer to the
fact that they are requesting a reduction from that 35 feet down to I believe it is 20.
Staff would recommend the 35 foot landscape buffer as required by the ordinance, but
as the applicant will testify, that will require removal of some of their lots. The final issue
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
March 14, 2000
Page 21
dealt with the turn around at the end of this culdesac here. Staff was worried about the
fact that it is just a 25 foot wide street with no (inaudible) for a culdesac. We were
wondering about the emergency access, turn around for residents or visitors driving into
the Subdivision. Apparently, they have spoken with the fire department and have been
or have an agreement with the fire department that it does meet their requirements as
long as this distance is no more than 150 feet. I believe theirs is 146.75. Those are the
main issues I’d like to point out. Any questions.
Norton: I have a question for staff. The fire department did make a note that they had
seen that there might be trouble trying to get hoses to lot 25. Has that been resolved?
Siddoway: I haven’t seen that. The comment that we have from Ken Bowers state that
all codes and water supply, hydrants need to meet the requirements. (Inaudible) name
sign to be constructed before the building started. That has not been resolved to my
knowledge. The applicant may want to address that.
Borup: Questions from any other Commissioner's. The applicants representative here
and like to come forward. I just might mention for anyone coming in late, this is the
project on Blue Heron Lane is the last item on our agenda this evening. The other
items have been moved to other dates.
Unger: Good evening Mr. Chairman and Commissioner's my name is Bob Unger. I am
with Pinnacle Engineers and we represent the developers on the project which is
(Inaudible) and Glen Anders. I believe staff has done a fine job of explaining the project
itself. We have reviewed staff comments and we have provided response to those
comments. What I would like to do is briefly go through staff comments and try to clarify
some of the concerns that were brought up by staff. I think one of the most important
things that I really want to bring up up front as we review the project. This particular
piece of property has some unusual restrains to say the lease. We have Meridian Road
runs along here. ACHD is requiring an addition 18 feet of right of way (inaudible)
currently there. We are also being required to dedicate an additional 15 feet of right of
way for Blue Heron Lane, but mostly our biggest restrain here is that we have a 40 foot
easement from the center line of the Jackson drain over to here that prevents us from
doing any development on that within that easement. So, as you see once you take out
the right of way and a 40 foot easement, we lose 1.25 acres of land. A little bit
excessive on a piece of property that is 3.98 acres. What we have tried to do is put
together a project here that will fit with the property, fit with the surrounding areas and
also provide some senior housing within the city. These are zero lot line townhomes
that we are proposing. Having gone through the staff comments, we are providing in
excess of 3600 square feet of open space. We have a path that we are providing along
the Jackson drain, which will hook up to Meridian Road. Actually is comes down here
and will hook into the sidewalk which we’ll be constructing as a requirement, so actually
we will have a complete pathway that loops around but also by coming out to Meridian
Road and heading north, you can also connect the path that runs on the north side of
the Jackson Drain which is part of a city park. Our original plan was actually we were
looking at tiling this and we met with Shari Stiles, the Director and she said no, your not
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
March 14, 2000
Page 22
going to tile that. We just put in this park area and a path so forget about tiling. I think
some of the—what we’d like to do is address some of the main issues here that staff
has brought up. As they stated, this property was zoned R-40 with an understanding
that they could have a density of 20 units to the acre. Based upon that, I think the
original developer has planned on putting somewhere in the area of 60 units, apartment
units on there. What we have gotten into, as far as the staff is concerned pertains to
setbacks, front and rear, for the project. In our initial reviews with the Director of
Planning and Zoning we came in with a project that had the common driveways were
not a separate lot. The property boundary was the center line of the road, the
driveways existed on an easement. In addition to that, our property lines were running
to the northern boundary of the property which is center line of the ditch and then we
were proposing an easement for the open space along this area. Consequently in our
review with the Director, she recommended that we put the streets or the driveways on
a separate lot and also all the common open space should be provided on a separate
for simplicity sake of maintenance etc. by the homeowners association. In doing that,
that totally removed our ability to meet the setbacks. We can’t meet the setbacks based
on that. Had we had our property lines to the center of the street like we proposed, we
would have had a 15 foot setback from that line
END OF SIDE TWO
Unger: in front. We would not be able to meet our rear setback, etc. So we went back
to the drawing board, revised the plan based upon what the director had reviewed with
us, so we didn’t feel this was going to be a major issue until your staff report came out.
In reviewing the comments pertaining to garages versus carports, these are not
duplexes these are single family residents or zero lot line townhouses. The code does
not address them, so it kind of puts us all in a situation where we are not sure which
way it should go. What we are proposing are the carports and they are a lattice cover
with a clear solid cover over top of the lattice. They are open. They make it easy for
neighbors to look in on each other, to kind of –security sake then anything else—that
they could be able to see through there and see that their neighbors are safe and what
not. We have provided you with a copy not a great one but a copy of what those look
like. We are as far as our parking spaces, we do comply with the code on the parking
spaces. We are providing the carport spaces and have additional parking. We have
parking at the clubhouse, we’ve made a couple of adjustments right in this area. We
shifted this structure down and we’ve taken this pathway and moved it over to this area.
We were able to shift this over and move this down and provide this unit with carport in
front and by doing that we were able to add 3 more parking spaces in this area. We
have made some minor modifications as requested by staff. We also provided a path
from the clubhouse out to there. As far as the 35 foot landscape requirement, we
understand what staff is saying. We concur with staff in that as a part of the zoning of
this property to an R-40 which took place in 93-94 in that time frame. That 35 foot
landscape buffer was a part of that. We don’t know how to get that modified. As staff
has said, that is probably a question for legal staff and also the City Council. What we
are proposing is a 20 foot landscape strip and we would also landscape right up to the
current sidewalk and current right of way along this area. Ada County Highway District
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
March 14, 2000
Page 23
does not have Meridian road slated for any kind of reconstruction or widening within
their 10 year plan and I’m not so sure it is with their 20 year plan. It is not in their plan
to have the work done and it may not ever happen. As we all know, ACHD changes
their minds and changes their road classification every 10 years, so it may never
happen. If it does, they still have their right of way. By the time they come in widen all
this is going to be mature landscaping. There will be a berm and we will have a fence
on top and also along here. We are asking for some consideration there. We are
asking for you folks this evening if we could to instead of waiting for legal counsel
response (inaudible) move it forward requesting City Council and legal staff provide
some sort of answer to that. Another comment from staff, we have provided some area
for storage. Most of the maintenance on the common area will be paid for by the
homeowners association and done by a private contractor. We are providing within the
lots minimal yard in between the parking areas and for private gardening and what not.
Any kind of tools that they might need we have provided in the area for storage,
shovels, rakes whatever the case. The majority of any kind of storage would occur over
in the clubhouse area. We are providing a club house in this area here with parking.
This would be for use of the homeowners association. People who live within the
development itself. We have a considerable amount of open space and once again I
think we have addresses the western stub and turn around for fire access over here.
We have reviewed that with Kenny Bowers from the very beginning. In fact at Shari
Stiles recommendation I went to Kenny Bowers and went over it with him. He did say
that this would be sufficient as long as we don’t over 100 feet. I have not seen the
report that you referenced here this evening pertaining to lot 25. This is lot 25. It is the
clubhouse lot. I am not sure I quite understand why they don’t feel they could reach in
here for fire protection. I guess that is something we will have to review with them.
Certainly we have a hydrant here. We would propose to put hydrants—coordinate that
with public works and fire departments. Wherever they want hydrants we will have to
put them in. We are extending sewer and water into the project, so we certainly can
coordinate hydrants and provide whatever access they may need. ACHD has required
a turn around. Initially they wanted us to put in a culdesac turn around here. In further
review and discussion with them, we have agreed to provide an emergency turn around
easement within this drive area. It is not a part of the parking. They felt that would be
sufficient for emergency turn around and we do need to review that with fire department
again. As far as the Comprehensive Plan policies, generally we agree with staff
comments on the issue. I believe there is two issues that we need to address and I
think I have pretty much addressed the 1.18 comment pertaining to our common open
space and the setbacks, etc. I think we have addressed that as far as to how we got to
this point and why we are where we are with our setbacks. As far as 6.11U, I am not
sure where staff is coming from this. We do believe that the project is a well planned
and designed project. We have taken into consideration the needs of the community.
This is a senior project which is needed within this community. In fact Lyn Helen who is
one of the developers on this project is from our signs we have on the corner she has
gotten extensive response, all very positive of people who are interested in purchasing
within this development. It appears to us that it is a needed use and appears that will
be received well. We also feel that it is affordable housing and really does meet the
needs of the seniors. Just a couple more items. All but 5 units in this project are single
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
March 14, 2000
Page 24
story. We have specific units that are designed for handicapped accessibility with the
lower cupboards etc. We have 5 units that are the two story units. We have kept them
far away from this area so that we don’t although we’re at least 80 feet from the back of
our buildings to any structure within Fathergill Subdivision we still try to keep these 5
two story units over to the south as not to effect any views that those folks might have.
One other point that I just want to bring up on Heron Brook Lane. We are required to
do ACHD is requiring us to do curbular sidewalk, half of a 36 foot pavement plus 12
feet. We are just about build or pave the whole dog gone road down to our boundary.
There is an access, although illegal, from Fathergills Subdivision further down that
comes in and cuts across two pieces of private property and there is traffic that cuts
through there. I live up in that area so I see that happening all the time. We discussed
that with ACHD. That particular street was supposed to have been barricaded. For
some reason they put the barricade on the south side of Blue Heron Lane which doesn’t
stop anybody from getting there. If that becomes an issue, particularly with the
neighbors who live down in here, ACHD said they would go back and enforce the
blocking of that road. If that issue should come up I wanted to make you folks aware of
that. As stated in my comment letter, we do understand there are some issues that
must be addressed by the Council but we do request that our application be forwarded
to the council with a favorable recommendation with the understanding that the Council
will have to make the final determination on the couple of issues of this project. With
that I will stand for any questions.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Unger.
Barbeiro: Mr. Unger. The intent was to be seniors only. I am a little perplexed when I
saw the design for the 3 bedroom as that does not appear to be a seniors only layout. I
am thinking with a 3 bedroom like that customarily you would have someone else living
there. Will you address that.
Unger: Well, what we were trying to do was provide a little bit of flexibility. Seniors are
seniors yes, but they are also grandparents. There are people who very well might
want to have a 3 bedroom unit.
Barbeiro: I am trying to compare this with the senior unit that is just down the street
and it is very similar. The intent was not to have a full time resident there but that
would be more of a temporary resident. Your explanations of the changes the lots the
setbacks means now that the roads would all be private and that would essentially be a
private driveway, not a public road.
Unger: Correct. In fact they are considered to be private driveways. They are not
considered to be private or publics roads. They are driveways much in the same way
that you would have for multi unit residents, 4 plexes, multi unit apartments where you
would have your parking in your driveways etc. This is a R-40 zoning which is a multi
family zoning.
Barbeiro: I don’t have the dimensions. How wide is a driveway then.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
March 14, 2000
Page 25
Unger: We have a 25 foot back to back curb and them we have a five foot sidewalk
and a 5 foot sidewalk.
Barbeiro: So you wouldn’t allow any on driveway parking on street parking.
Unger: Well certainly. It can accommodate on street parking. There is not much room
considering we have our carports here—those are actually designated for compact.
Barbeiro: Where my discussion was leading was say for example, right here we have
someone parked at this spot and someone pulls out of their driveway. Your not going to
have the room and the concerns I imagine that would be left for public works to deal
with.
Unger: If I could clarify very quickly, we’ve got 50 full size parking spaces, with the car
ports and parking spaces here over in this area. We have 50 full size parking spaces
which is more than enough and then we also have 25 compacts. We have a lot of
parking. We do feel that 25 curb back to curb is sufficient. If public works wants to
review that a little bit closer, that is certainly their prerogative, but we feel that that
should be sufficient. You also have to remember they are seniors and there maybe a
duley or two in there, maybe, maybe not. But certainly Cadillac’s.
Barbeiro: Can you describe for me how the single family residents two car garage in
comparison to a duplex, comparison to a townhouse applies to this in regards to our
zoning ordinances. There appears to be some confusion and maybe since you did the
design you could tell me how you interrupted it so that I can understand your visions.
Unger: The problem is exactly that. How do you interpret something that doesn’t exist.
There are no guidelines for townhouses. Actually in our reviews of this, we look at the
typical senior does not have two vehicles. We felt that providing one covered space per
unit would be sufficient. In our reviews with the director, she did say well you know
single family residents your supposed to have two, but understanding that these are
seniors and the likelihood of them having two vehicles is in our favor, she didn’t see a
major problem with it so that is why we went forward with it this way. I don’t know how
to make a comparison on that with you. We are asking for an exception on that
requirement, although we do have one covered and a compact uncovered. If we start
putting in two spaces for every townhouse, there will be no front yard whatsoever, so
we thought that this—going this route gives us more open space in front of the units for
a little bit of lawn and a little bit of gardening and what not.
Barbeiro: I take it you are trying to avoid that James Court look of those townhouses
around the corner.
Unger: Absolutely.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
March 14, 2000
Page 26
Barbeiro: You said that the lawns would be the responsibility of the individual
homeowners or would there be one landscaping company that comes through and
does—
Unger: Let me clarify that. All the open common open space, all the landscape area—
this is all lot one all the way around this thing is lot one. All that will be owned and
maintained by the homeowners association. They would in turn contract with some sort
of a lawn contractor to maintain all that. What we have is little areas in front of each
unit that there could be maintain by each individual homeowner or I’m sure if they
wanted someone else to do it for them they could. The only part that would be
individually responsible would be in that little front area.
Barbeiro: I see that as being a major cue between the neighbors, but that is something
for the neighbors to endure and work out. If you were building a seniors only
townhouse area, in my experience most of those are intended to be low maintenance
for seniors who are relatively mobile. If I can have a mobile senior I am going to have
someone who is likely retired. I don’t see any storage area here for recreational
vehicles along with the vehicle that they may have.
Unger: I will address that very short and sweet. First of all we didn’t have room for it.
Second of all it is not a requirement. Third of all, I am aware of a project that very well
may come in down here that is going to have storage. There are other storage areas all
over the place now popping up everywhere. They are going to have individual storage
and RV storage etc.
Barbeiro: I am thinking that when –take my parents for instance, they use to go with
their other senior friends and park their RV right in front of their house. When my
brothers would go visit my parents at their townhouse, they would park their RV in front
of the house. I see this as being concerned—you could never park an RV in there
because you would never have the length to do it.
Unger: Correct and may I point out in the CC&R’s that that would not be permitted.
You folks have a draft of the CC&R’s. Those are being up dated and up graded and
improved and would not permit the RV parking within the development itself. So, any
body who bought a townhouse within this development would know right up front that
they would not be able to have their RV’s in there.
Barbeiro: In the two story, three bedroom units, you still propose a one vehicle parking
in that area, is that correct.
Unger: No, well right here we have 4 parking—this has been moved over and it is
correct, would have one there and same for this and this.
Barbeiro: In our meeting for another project two meetings before, one of the
discussions was the our CUP having the 25 percent reductions, while the ordinance do
not excuse me are not clear on this. I don’t believe it was ever the intent of the City to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
March 14, 2000
Page 27
allow for a 25 percent reduction on a zero lot line townhouse in an R-40 zone. Again,
while it is not specifically laid out as such, I find it cramped to take anything away from
an R-40 zoning and cutting back in the 15 feet, although I do understand the restraints
that you have. I just wanted to make that point apart from the realities of building this.
Unger: Right, and I understand that. I think the best way I can address your front yard
setback issue is that these are carports. They are not garages, although by the zoning
ordinance and by the building code, they are considered structures. They are not
substantial structures with solid walls etc. More so than anything I think the intent of the
setback is to keep any kind of major structure out of that front yard setback that would
adversely effect any kind of vision coming in and out. These being open are not going
to cause any adverse effect on peoples vision coming in and out of their driveway or
their carport. The buildings are setback 20 feet. The actual residential structures are
setback 20 feet. It is just the carports that we are asking for a variance on.
Barbeiro: There is a line here in the comments that says with regards to your carports,
it would result in a solid row of carports obscuring the view of townhouse facias and
creating a tunnel effect through the main drive of the complex. You did give us a
(inaudible) of some of those types of carports. Could you elaborate on that and would
you agree or disagree with staff notes.
Unger: Actually, I disagree with the tunnel effect. It is all in the eyes of the beholder I
think there. In that these are all open, it is not going to give you anymore of a tunnel
effect than –a little bit more but then rows of mailboxes and things of that sort. If these
were solid walls and things like that and they weren’t open and lighted with a clear
cover over them, I could see a tunnel effect. These are open and light and airy and I
don’t believe it is going to cause a tunnel effect that staff is referring to.
Barbeiro: My final question, will you be using individual mailboxes or a group mailbox.
Unger: Actually that is an issue we have to review with the postmaster, as far as to
what they would like. I think a better way of doing it is in small groups of 3 to 4 boxes in
a grouping like that would be our preference. We will work with what ever the
postmaster likes on that. Once we go through the preliminary phase of the project, prior
to final platting, we will send over a plat to the postmaster and have them review it for
placement of mailboxes.
Hatcher: In regards to the way it is currently laid out—well my first question is, is there
a representative that can address the architectural design and potential issues on the
project. Is that you?
Unger: No, Glenn is here and she can address those issues for you.
Hatcher: My question is redirected to her.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
March 14, 2000
Page 28
Norton: Mr. Unger, earlier in your testimony you had stated that you would hope that
this board would send your project to the council for due recommendation and you
would work out all these particulars with the City Council. Is that correct?
Unger: As far as the legal aspect of the 35 foot landscape requirement that was put on
the annexation and I believe there was one other –
Norton: So you would work out that and you would work out the fire thing and work out
the emergency vehicles. You’d work out all these things out with the City Council, is
that correct.
Unger: Yes, or prior to if that were the need.
Norton: What do you consider this body then. What do you consider this meeting here
tonight with us.
Unger: I do not mean to insult this body. I have a lot of respect for this body and have
been before this body many times. It is not my intention to do that. I believe we had
two issues that are very specific that would need to be addressed by the City Council. I
believe that one of those issues is the 35 foot landscape requirement and possibly the
setback issue in that we are asking for a variance and generally speaking the City
Council is the governing board that makes the final decisions on variances, particularly
as far as fire requirements, we will meet the fire requirements. We don’t have issues
with the fire requirements. I don’t know what their issue is on lot 25, but whatever it is,
we will take care of it. That is fairly standard. You get comments back from the fire
department, unless it is a major issue from the fire department that says we just can’t
do it, we can’t service this property, we can’t protect this property—if it is just an issue
well we have a problems with lot 25, then that is an issue and it is something that is
worked out to the fire departments satisfaction prior to final platting the project. That is
fairly standard issue there along with sewer, water and things like that. Those are all
required things that we have to do. We will comply with the fire department. Certainly if
I offended you, I apologize.
Borup: Anything else?
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question. First of all to let the Commissioner's—I
think there is some concern or question maybe as to why this is a planned
development. It is all ready zoned R-40. The reason is, it was annexed in January 4,
1994 and zoned R-40 at that time, but there was a condition of annexation that it would
be developed as with a conditional use permit, as a planned development when it was
developed in the future. One question for Bob that I am unclear on is the variance for
the setbacks on the carports. Do you have a full 20 feet from the front of the carport to
the structure of the building itself, or do you just have 15 feet. Or is 15 feet the what
your calling the reduced –
Unger: We have 20 foot on the carports.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
March 14, 2000
Page 29
Siddoway: So they are 20 feet deep and do they go out to a—is there a sidewalk along
there?
Unger: Yes.
Siddoway: Okay, so it is 20 feet from the sidewalk to the structure that would be
carport. Then the, what you are calling the compact parking, is 15 feet from back of
sidewalk toward the house and not quite reaching the house.
Unger: That would be correct.
Siddoway: Okay. The other issue that has come up was whether RV storage,
maintenance shed and those parts of a planned development would be required here.
The answer is yes. It is up to the commission whether to recommend that they be
accommodated on this site or whether you think that off site accommodations at the
storage units that have been noted through town, could be used to meet that
requirement or if they should be on here. I talked with Bob this afternoon about
maintenance area and I think we talked about a portion of the clubhouse being used for
that. The other thing to point out that in an R-40 zone, which this is currently zoned,
bonus density requirement we’ve been interrupting was the reduction from the minimum
lot size. There are minimum setbacks in R-40, 20 foot in the front, 15 in the rear, etc.
There is not a minimum lot size in the R-40 zone just for the Commissioner's
standpoint. Bob Unger is also correct in that there are no direct requirements related to
townhouses. We saw this before on Lee Centers and whether duplex standards should
apply since they are the closest or what else do you come up. Duplex standards seem
to be the closest comparison for garages and they do require the 2 car garages, so the
question is does the one car carport with a second car uncovered—a reduced size pad
meet that requirement. I don’t know if I raised more issues, but I did want the
Commissioner's to understand why this is a planned development, first of all. For
myself, I did shrink 15 feet and 20 feet—I wasn’t sure where those measurements
where coming from. That is all I have.
Barbeiro: Mr. chairman, if I may ask Steve, the bonus density was intended for lots
size, not necessarily a reduction in 25% on setbacks and other items. Is that correct.
Siddoway: That’s been—it’s not well defined in the definitions of the ordinance. That
has been the or is our current working definition.
Borup: Anyone else? I think there was some questions on –did you have anything else
Mr. Unger? There was some questions on the architecture.
Anders: Glenn Anders (inaudible) patio homes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
March 14, 2000
Page 30
Hatcher: My questions refer to a couple of issues. First of all, could you point me in the
document that is before us that addresses what the materials and finishes on these
buildings are going to be.
Anders: We have a list of building materials. I think it was supplied in the package.
Hatcher: I was just digging for it and couldn’t find it.
Siddoway: It is not in the reply. It is in their original submittal package.
Hatcher: While I am digging for that, could you enlighten me quickly. That’s what I am
looking for. We have vinyl exterior siding. Asphalt shingle roof. Vinyl windows.
Aluminum gutters and then metal lattice carports. That’s the exterior materials. For
maintenance purposes on the –it is all low maintenance materials –standard residential
materials as well.
Anders: Right, they are intended to be low maintenance. This little grassy area
between the parking spaces that your asking if that would be maintained by a single
contractor. That would be maintained by the same people who took care of the rest of
the grass and trees. In the CC&R’s there is a thing that says like everybody can walk
across everybody else’s front yard, even though that is platted to be their private land, it
is also stated as an easement in the CC&R’s to be available to everyone.
Barbeiro: I’m sorry. All of the front yards would then come under one single
landscaping maintenance group. There would be a consistency all the way through.
Anders: Right. You’ll have to take care of one little patch of ground yourself. They
would have to go through an architectural committee to plant flowers.
Hatcher: Now there was talk about a garage and a covered carport.
Anders: The two story units have garages.
Hatcher: Which are only 5 of what we see. All the other units are single story which
only have one lattice covered carport. I am concerned about the lattice covered
carport. This is a senior’s facility. Even at my age, I don’t like my car being rained on or
having to—
Anders: They are covered completely, but it just look like a lattice.
Hatcher: That’s not what the picture is showing—so I think that is an important
clarification.
Anders: The pictures are actually for a patio cover and not a carport.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
March 14, 2000
Page 31
Hatcher: Zero lot line construction. Had a code review been thoroughly done? Zero lot
line buildings require firewalls and with a carport considered a structure, you have a fire
issue there that needs to be resolved.
Anders: Where is attaches to the house.
Hatcher: That is correct. You have two carports that attach to the building, which would
mean you have a one hour fire rated wall separating the two facilities, stopping at the
carport. So if one unit was to burn, that fire could be transmitted to the next unit around
the wall because of this carport. I think they need some architectural considerations to
be looked into on that –not an issue for this board, but I want to bring it to your
attention.
Anders: The primary reason we put those carports in like that way was for ease of
access to the seniors. Those actually have access into the kitchen and pantry utility
areas right there. You don’t have to walk across the little patch of grass and go in
through the front door. Whereas maybe if you had like rows of 2 story apartment
buildings that were 20 feet apart or so and then all the carports down here, the people
have to walk to them, even though there—you know.
Hatcher: I understand what your attempting to do. I am just bringing it to your attention
and you need to take a closer look at that.
Anders: Okay and we will do that.
Freckleton: While we are on building materials, I did have a question that came up.
There was some conflicting information in the description materials. It talks about a 4
framing system of 9-1/2 TGI’s. On the plan I believe it refers to an on grade slab
foundation. I do have some pretty significant concerns about high ground water in this
situation on this site. I’d like to get some clarification on that.
Unger: For the record, Bob Unger again. We are aware of the higher ground water in
the area. Certainly if whichever building system is the more appropriate building system
for the foundations, that’s what we’ll put in. But, that is something that will be
addressed at the building stage of the units. We would comply with whatever the
recommendations of the public works department and the building division.
Freckleton: Bob, did you understand my comment about the groundwater and my
references to the groundwater report?
Unger: Yes I did and let me address that very quickly here. There are—we going to
have to on the drainage on this, we going to have to use a combination of seepage
beds and swales. To the southern portion of the project, we are in a situation there
where we can’t put in seepage beds on the southern part then on the one more to the
south and toward the drainage (inaudible) those areas we going to have to look at some
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
March 14, 2000
Page 32
drainage swales. We will be able to allow or be permitted to dump some
predevelopment into the Jackson Drain, you know how that goes.
Borup: Any other questions from the Commissioner's?
Norton: Mr. Chairman I have one more questions regarding the school board report
from Jim Carberry. According to Meridian School District they say that they do believe
there will be 10 extra elementary age students, 7 middle school and 7 senior high
school age students. Did the school misunderstand what this was all about. Was it
stated as a seniors---
Borup: It was not on the application, so they just did their standard formula on the
number of units, as my understanding. I’d like to continue our public hearing. Do we
have anyone from the public who would like to address this commission at this time?
Cunningham: Ted Cunningham. 125 Blue Heron Lane. I live just across the road in
Pfost Subdivision. I’d be almost from the first road off of Meridian Road, right straight
across in Pfost Subdivision. Now, that shows two roads feeding into Blue Heron Lane,
correct. Okay, that Blue Heron Lane now, how wide will that be—how much road will
that be when it is taken care of.
Borup: It is going to be a 50 foot right of way—a standard street right of way.
Eventually this applicant was giving up some of their property to do –half plus 12.
Cunningham: How about the property on the Pfost Subdivision.
Borup: When that property is developed then the roads will be completed the other
half.
Cunningham: I have a plat of the Pfost Subdivision and there was 33 feet given to Blue
Heron Lane when the Subdivision was put in there. That is from the section line, which
is just about maybe 6 or 8 feet on the north side of Blue Heron Lane now. Now that
isn’t going to be that much roadway unless it comes off of the property here that we are
talking about. What I want to know, will there be any
END OF SIDE THREE
Cunningham: have to give up on the south side of Blue Heron. No.
Borup: No, not unless you would want to develop your property into something else.
Cunningham. Okay and another thing. What is going to happen to Blue Heron Lane?
There is a road like he said which is probably illegal coming onto Blue Heron Lane from
the Fathergill Subdivision. That is just a gravel road now and the people coming out of
that Subdivision comes down this gravel road when they can go right square down Oil
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
March 14, 2000
Page 33
road out to Meridian Road. He said it was illegal and I just wonder if that is right. If that
should be blocked off coming down Blue Heron.
Brown: Mr. Cunningham, as he stated the highway district said if that is a problem they
will have it blocked off. That is all we can go by.
Borup: You would need to contact the highway department.
Cunningham: Okay, now will there be sewer and water put down Blue Heron Lane? To
the end?
Borup: To the end of their property.
Cunningham: Okay. This tract that we are talking about now, down to the end of their
property. All right. Thank you.
Borup: Any one else?
Dundee: Doyle Dundee and I live in the Fathergill area there on Larchmont Place. I am
concerned whether there would be any C & R’s for taking care of the exterior of the
project. Of all the buildings and the roads and driveways and carports and so forth. I
did not hear anything mentioned about that.
Borup: We can get the applicant back up to address that more detailed. They did say
there was CC&R’s.
Dundee: Yeah for the lawns and landscaping. I am talking about the buildings. Also I
was wondering if there was any provision for maintenance of (inaudible) that runs
between the two projects. It is pretty messy.
Brown: Mr. Chairman. He has called it out as a common area.
Dundee: He said something about a park. A designated park.
Borup: Are you talking about the property Mr. Dundee or the ditch. The Jackson Drain
itself. Down in the water area. That is under the maintenance of Nampa Meridian
Irrigation.
Dundee: Oh is it. They don’t pay much attention to it. Also I did not hear any mention
of the living square feet of the units.
Borup: They varied a little bit and we will let the applicant address that. Thank you sir.
Any one else.
McMoore: Allan McMoore, 103 E. Woodbury. Mr. Commissioner and Commissioner's a
couple questions for you and one is I am not sure—can I see your first slide—the plat
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
March 14, 2000
Page 34
where it shows Meridian Road with the landscaping. Right here on Meridian Fathergill,
we have a berm. I want to know, do you guys know if that (inaudible) from the road. It
is. Okay, and I guess your asking for 25 foot instead. Won’t that cause a difference in
the look. My house is right about there in the first culdesac.
Borup: You’re a little further over. You put your light right in the middle of the ditch.
McMoore: Right up here there. Won’t that if you have 35 foot on one berm and 25 on
the other won’t that cause sort of a strange look. My second question is the City of
Meridian handles the maintenance of the Meridian Park on the north side of Jackson
Drain. Who is going to handle the south side of Jackson Drain and is it common,
meaning I can walk on it. If I can do it, my kids can do it and the 500 kids that live in my
neighborhood can do it. Do you have a fence going out.
Borup: We’ll have that come up too. Any thing else. Thank you sir. Any one else.
Hench: My name is Brett Hench, 149 E. Woodbury Drive. I am in the Fathergill
Subdivision. One statement that the gentleman over here made—this R-40 zoning
there was a condition upon the R-40 zoning that it has to be a planned development.
Does that mean it can’t be an apartment building.
Siddoway: No. It means it can be apartments –R-40 would certainly allow for
apartments
Brown: Planned development is the hearing that we are in right now.
Hench: Okay, I’ll do the 3 minute rule. I have heard a lot of things about oh gee we
need to go 25 feet in stead of 35 feet and what about the garages and on and on, but
this thing for me is a God sent. I sitting here in stark terror that somebody is going to
throw up a 60 unit apartment building right next looking into my backyard and they’ll
have 35 feet and they’ll have all the things that we’ve been talking about that there is
going to be—you know there are conflicts and problems, so we go in and put in the 60
unit apartment complex looking into everybody’s backyard and everybody wants to
move out and the property values go right down the drain. As somebody who lives
there, I would like to see this happen, because the alternatives for us are horrendous.
There are apartments just on the other side that when they went up I was ready to
throw up the for sale sign. It hasn’t been a problem because they are far enough away.
This looks great to me.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Hench? Anyone else. Come on up.
Haw: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner's my name is Raleigh Haw. I reside at 530 East
Blue Heron Lane, Meridian. I own property to the southeast of this particular piece of
property being reviewed. Can we go back to the map. This is the piece of property that
I have in question here. My first question is the traffic direction west to east coming off
Meridian road and down Blue Heron Lane comes often times across this piece of
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
March 14, 2000
Page 35
property and up Uricka and this way. We have a lot of traffic flow starting to develop
from here and why they come down Blue Heron Lane, I don’t know. But anyway it
does. There are 4 commercial developments here. They are sort of a Sanford and Son
without the son here. There is some kind of a engine thing. There is Meridian Meat
and there is a building construction company in here. There is also some rental
properties in here and right here. This all generates so much traffic through this
particular area. The question I have is it Blue Heron Lane and the Pfost Subdivision
property in right there. The property line that I have comes across the end of the street
to the north side of the section line right there. The lane that I have going down to
where I reside is about right here. What is going to be proposed for the continuation of
Blue Heron Lane from this point to this point. That is the question I have. I understand
in listening to this (inaudible) size of the concrete and paving construction to be done
here—sidewalks and streets. You mentioned that this is an illegal crossing. Again why
they put this particular barrier here, I can only believe that it was providing more access.
What is being proposed for the extension of Blue Heron Lane through here.
Borup: Nothing is being proposed on this application. It would take further
developments, so probably when your property is developed is when that extension
would happen.
Haw: I though something might have been proposed by ACHD at this time for the
extension of that and as sewer and other service lines.
Brown: Mr. Chairman, generally as a general rule, unless the development needed and
the traffic count that they were going to generate created a problem, they wouldn’t
require the developer to do off site improvements. This definitely or all of his traffic is
east of you and he is required to improve his (inaudible) to the west of you. He is
required to improve his entire length of his property along Blue Heron. When he comes
up to your property line that is at the end of the existing right of way, as he stated
previously in his presentation, the highway district said if that is a problem, which you
can testify that there trespassing across your property to get to the street, that they’ll
take care of it. They will move the barricade and take care of it. I would recommend
that you go do that. I’d talk to the highway district and ask them to do it and after this
meeting I’d talk to Mr. Unger and get your name so they could call you. It is easier for
you to call them and they are going to listen to you and Mr. Cunningham as residents
along there and that traffic coming along.
Haw: Well right now it is quite surprising the number of car or units coming down
through here. We have semi’s coming down through here now. We have large trucks
to service these commercial enterprises that are going on in this particular area right in
here. It may come to that right now, I don’t have a particular objection, but I can see
where a great deal of traffic increase in units out of here was to access and exit points
coming out that Blue Heron Lane would be congested. With only one service entrance
in here from emergency standpoints, you only have one access into this and that is
Blue Heron Lane coming in from Meridian Road. The only other emergency access
which has been used does come out of here and this I can attest they have used
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
March 14, 2000
Page 36
emergency services through this area. If there is a question about it, perhaps I’ll lay
that to rest. They do use it. Something came up about offsite storage units that peaked
my interest. There was kind of a general stuff about in here and so far I have not heard
anything about it, which happens to land in my backyard. A part of the traffic and
should there be future extension of services, if anything planned then or not in the
planning but considered for this point to somewhere in this area right here.
Borup: Yeah, as we stated earlier, that would be up to the owners of that property to do
that development. Planning takes place as each parcel is developed to some extent,
so that is up to that property owner to do that. The only piece that this application is
concerned with is that shaded area out. Thank you sir. Any one else.
Bell: Ron Bell. 117 E. Woodbury. I just have one question. Is there going to be an age
limit of the people residing in this vicinity and other then that, I think it –what I’ve seen
tonight it looks like it will be something good for the area. It is a lot better than weeds.
Borup: They are stated ages 55 and over.
Bell: 55 and over. So that doesn’t mean that one person being 55 they can have son,
daughter, grand kids living in that residence.
Borup: We will get a clarification from the CC&R’s. Anyone else. Who wants to
address—Bob you got most of those questions.
Unger: Once again Bob Unger for the record. Just to review the comments from the
neighbors. As far as Mr. Cunningham—we are being required to—it is have of 36 plus
12 feet of pavement, is what we have to do on Blue Heron Lane. Consequently we are
going to put in 30 foot of asphalt, including and also 5 foot sidewalks plus the curb and
gutter. We will be developing the surface to 30 foot asphalt roadway at this time. When
and if development occurs to the south side, then additional pavement curbs gutters
and sidewalks will be provided the total width from the right of way will be 50 feet. That
is a standard street with any of these developments. I think 2 or 3 people brought up
the issue about the Fathergill Subdivision traffic. We addressed that earlier. All of you
folks that have addressed that there is a problem, we’d like to get your name and
maybe we can all go together to ACHD and request that they do something about that
traffic. It’s the best we can do on that. ACHD has indicated that they would cooperate
with that. Mr. Doyle had a question about the maintenance of the buildings, landscape
etc. That is all being covered within the CC&R’s for maintenance of structures,
landscaping, the drive ways and everything is being covered. The maintenance is still
covered. The Jackson Drain concern they brought up about access to our path along
the Jackson Drain or excuse me. I am jumping too far ahead. Jackson Drain, we have
to provide since the City has their park on the north side, we’ve been given the task of
providing Nampa Meridian Irrigation District with access to the Jackson Drain for
maintenance and cleaning, etc. of the Jackson Drain. We have to provide that access
and that is a part of our little path system. That would be along the northern section.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
March 14, 2000
Page 37
They would be able to come along the path area and get their equipment in and keep
the ditch cleared out as best as they normally do.
Brown: So, from your standpoint on the Jackson Drain, what kind of –your calling it out
as a common area. Where does your maintenance quit or do you have a limit where
you go to waters edge. Where is the point that your going to stop.
Unger: I think the best way to address that is that right now there is ducks, geese in
that drain. I see them everyday. We would be similar to what the city has done on the
north side within their park area along there and their path area where we’d keep it
grass down to within approximately 2-3 feet from the water, to keep some what of a
natural habitat in the water area. The path would be up on the bank. We would have to
have a license agreement with Nampa Meridian. We reviewed that with them. It was
generally not a problem or issue. Someone asked about the square footages. We are
looking at 960 square feet to 1400 square feet on the two stories. The third gentleman
that spoke asked about our path and whether we are going to fence the ditch and
whether we are going to have 500 kids over there playing in the ditch. I think our
liability is the same as the City’s. The City didn’t feel they needed to fence the ditch.
Certainly, for us to fence the ditch, we’re not anticipating fencing the ditch. Our path will
be up on the bank, very, very similar to what the City has done a long the north side.
The path on the north side, that is open to all public to use. We want to be able to
provide some interconnectivity here. We want to allow people to use the south side as
well as accessing the City’s path. They can certainly do that. All they have to do is
come down Meridian road to the sidewalk and come across the bridge or the culvert
and access the city pathway. We don’t want to prevent anyone from using it.
Borup: I think that was a question. Is that pathway is going to be open to the public.
Unger: It is and it will be. The last question that I saw was Ron Bell asked about the
age limit and like I said we are proposing 55 and up and there are some specific federal
guidelines on age limits and we have to be careful about that. We will comply with HUD
requirements and etc.
Borup: Are children prohibited.
Unger: On a permanent basis, yes.
Borup: Up to what age. I know (inaudible audience conversation). Could you repeat
his answer for the record.
Unger: Federal guidelines require that 80 per cent of the people who live there have to
be 55 or over.
Brown: The reason that it speaks to it that way is discrimination laws. You can’t
discriminate against someone that is not 55 by not allowing them and that is why it is a
percentage that the government come up with.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
March 14, 2000
Page 38
Unger: Unless you have other questions, in closing I want to point out to you all that
this is a in fill project. We are certainly not trying to accomplish the density that the
zoning was given back in 1994. In fact we think it will lend itself well with the Fathergill
Development to the north and future development that may occur to the south and we
all know that not even a quarter mile south of there is an extensive apartment units. We
feel it is a good in fill project. We feel we generally comply with the Comprehensive
Plan. We generally comply with a few exceptions with the zoning ordinance. We ask
for your consideration in that and we do ask that we be forwarded on to the City Council
and I think that is what I was trying to address when I was asking this commission to
forward these couple of issues on to the City Council for their review. I was trying to
more address staff’s comment that we be tabled or held up for additional consideration.
We would like to go forward with the project and I think the two issues that generally
come up are a couple of issues that may take legal staff at City Council to finally sort
out. We do ask for your recommendation and hopefully for approval and ask you to
move us forward this evening.
Brown: I have a few questions for you. The highway district says Meridian Road is a
collector as I understand. They are requiring you to put in sidewalks?
Unger: Curb, gutter and sidewalk is existing. There is a curb cut we have to cut out
and replace further to the south of this picture.
Brown: You said you had to do a or give them an additional 8 feet of right of way.
Unger: 18 feet.
Brown: So you have no new construction, right. Your going to have 18 feet. Do you
have any intent of doing a license agreement over that to maintain that until the
highway district—
Unger: That is something that we did—I have discussed with Larry Sale. We just have
not based upon what happens here, you know we may go into a license agreement with
ACHD. Certainly if this commission or the City Council specifically requires us to do a
35 foot buffer out side of that additional right of way, then I don’t think we will be open to
maintaining that 18 feet of right of way. It will just have to stay as weeds until ACHD
widens it because that would give us a complete—18 feet plus 35 feet –that’d be 53
feet of landscaping to maintain, so I don’t think—
Brown: That is your feelings. That is the way your looking at it. I am looking at it
different because I see the 18 feet of weeds that we know the highway district has the
same maintenance crew that Nampa Meridian does. From a marketing standpoint, I
think that a little bit of hydro seed and a little bit of lawn maintenance is a pretty cheap
way to keep the City of Meridian a little nicer in the street sections than -- When you all
ready have the improvements there is it a finished edge and then your going to have—
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
March 14, 2000
Page 39
nothing really. From a marketing standpoint it stinks, I think. From a good neighbor
standpoint, it really stinks.
Unger: Let me address that. You have a valid point, marketing wise, appearance wise
certainly it would behoove us to do that. We haven’t entered into any kind of agreement
with ACHD. Our hopes are that we can get a reduction from the 35 foot requirement
down to the 20 foot requirement and then we would go ahead and not just put grass in
along that 18 foot. Maybe put shrubs and some other nice amenities along there within
that right of way which could be a total of 38 feet. Certainly it behooves us to do it,
which ever the case. At this point, we haven’t entered into anything with ACHD. I
understand where your concern is there and certainly we want to be good neighbors.
We want to go along with nice entry ways into the city. We are just asking for some
consideration here on the individual requirements of the city.
Barbeiro: Could you tell me you personal opinion of the exterior construction quality on
the townhouses on James Court and on the Aspen Hills Apartment Complex.
Unger: I am not familiar with Aspen Hills but James Court all of the siding on that is
curve T1-11 painted. Those were all older apartment complexes.
Barbeiro: Those are the ones that are up front, the yellow ones. I referring to the blue
ones, the townhouses in the back.
Unger: Those are four plexes. For me to make a comparison of those two different—
Borup: Where you going with this Tom?
Unger: Yeah, were you going with this. To make a comparison of those two when I
really am not that familiar with them would be totally unfair. What I do know is what we
are proposing for our building material. Those are good quality building materials. The
vinyl siding, etc. Low maintenance is one of the major issues. The carports, I know the
issue came up on the fire protection. The carports are aluminum. Those are all fire
issues that have to be addressed at building stage. It is all good quality material.
Those are at least better than James Court. I know better than James Court.
Barbeiro: Where I am going with it is that the apartment complex at Aspen Hills, which
has been brought to our commission—an example of fair construction is a 20 year roof,
R-2 vinyl aluminum windows and is vinyl siding, very similar to what you have proposed
as the exterior of this.
Unger: Did you say 20 year?
Barbeiro: 20 year roofing material.
Unger: They are going with standard asphalt chicks or yeah. Fiberglass shingles. I
don’t know for sure but I would assume we are going with architectural which is a little
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
March 14, 2000
Page 40
bit better. That’s a standard shingle. You can get 20 year, 30 year or 50 year. An awful
lot of them look the same.
Borup: That it Tom? Thank you. Anything else Bob? We had intended that the public
testimony be done with. You can make two, I’ll give both of you a chance to make
something real quick.
Dundee: Doyle Dundee here. I am still interested in the homeowners will have any
responsibility with like plumbing coming into the unit, any kind of upkeep maintenance
or repair to their dwellings.
Borup: He said that is all covered in the CC&R’s and there will be exterior
maintenance.
Dundee: He did not give a specific what it was going to be.
Hatcher: I concur with this question. The original question was not answered. The
original question was does the homeowners association that provides the maintenance
of the common space also take care of the maintenance of the exterior of the building,
or is that the responsibility of the owner of the townhouse.
McMoore: Allan McMoore for the record again. I apologize, I guess my question was
misunderstood. My question was are we going to fence the canal. I don’t want the
canal fenced. I like it the way it is. Are you going to fence the whole property so my
kids can not get in to your guys property.
Borup: Okay, clarification on the exterior maintenance.
Hellen: Lynn Hellen for Heron Brook Patio Homes. In response to your question, we
will be collecting homeowners dues from the residents and it will cover reserves for
maintenance and replacements for the exterior of the buildings and the clubhouse. The
only thing the homeowners will be responsible for is what is the interior of their units
from the walls in and as far as plumbing, up to the units—that will be covered by the
homeowners association—I’m sorry, up to the lot. Anything from the lot or anything on
the lot and in the dwelling, will be the homeowners responsibility. Just like a regular
home. When the buildings –when they need to have their roofs replaced then we will
do that all at one time. If the siding needs to be repaired, we will do that all at the same
time. The siding that we are using has a lifetime guarantee, so the only thing I can see
that would be a problem is if it did need some repairs and we would take care of that all
at the same time. On the St. James the apartment—or Aspen Hills—that is owned by a
private party or corporation. How old is that building. 1994 it was built and it is all ready
falling apart. If it is falling apart that should be the owners responsibility to fix that. If
our building started falling apart after 6 years, the homeowners dues would have to
cover that to replace it and bring it into good condition.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
March 14, 2000
Page 41
Barbeiro: I don’t doubt that ownership of an individual townhouse does carry far more
weight then those who are renting a 3 story apartment complex and that the
homeowners would demand that any repairs for the exterior vinyl be taken care of
immediately. It is just that having lived in Aspen Hills for a short while, I did notice that a
good wind storm did pick up and take off portions of the roof and vinyl.
Hellen: In addition to that, the builder that we have hired is a custom home builder. He
is actually a very high end builder for a project like this so hopefully it is a good quality
construction will eliminate a lot of future problems. I am just going to answer a couple
other questions real quick here. In response to the 3 bedroom units, the only reason
why we added those and we just added those at the last minute is because I have had
customers call and request a 3 bedroom unit. As long as the master bedroom is on first
floor, they wanted additional bedrooms up for furniture, for coming out of large homes
into smaller units. Could not quite go into a 2 bedroom unit. We only have five and
those are spoken for. Those went first and I was surprised. I spoke with Gabe Pennen
that worked at Southwind Retirement Townhomes and she said that she had sold
several 2 story units to handicapped individuals in wheelchairs, which surprised me.
Because the master was on the first floor, their company could stay upstairs. These
units –we will have handicapped units available and the other units all meet the fair
housing requirements. We can customize a unit if we have someone with special
needs. I don’t even know of a townhome property in the County that is offering this. I
have several friends that are in wheelchairs. I use to donate my time and I know there
is a huge need for housing that can be purchased. There is housing out there that is
leased but a lot of these people they want to be able to own their own home and to
have that right and to live in a home that meets their needs. One more thing—my time
up—okay the last thing is the carports. The reason why I wanted the carports to look
like patios is because I got this idea when I drove through Goldcrest in Nampa. A lot of
the seniors there did not have cars and they were using their driveways and garages as
like a carport or patio and set it up with furniture. I thought if the people don’t have a
car, at least the structure all ready looks like a patio and they could use it for whatever
they wanted to.
Borup: Thank you. Any other questions from the commission. We still have one more
public hearing.
Brown: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearing.
Norton: I second.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Okay, do we have a motion.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
March 14, 2000
Page 42
Brown: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to discuss it. First of all, I don’t believe staff was trying to
slow or hold up the project. I think they had some valid concerns. I have a concern
about the 20 foot setback. The times that I have seen a 20 foot setback has to do with
cars backing up. The code requires, even in a parking lot, that you have 22 foot of
backing space before you start to turn. So like you’ll have a parking stall and you have
a minimum of 22 feet. Now you have a 25 foot driveway or private street I guess we
should call it, and so you barely meet the minimum for doing that. I don’t have a
problem with the rear yard setback but I am not quite sold the 20 foot should be
reduced down to 15 or that the carports should be allowed a reduced setback. I guess
that is where I’m at. I feel very strongly that Meridian Road needs to have a license
agreement and I would recommend that whoever makes the motion that that be a
requirement of this board for the Council. I also feel strongly that we need to support
what the original annexation was and ask for the 35 foot landscape setback as was
done with the annexation document. I really don’t have a concern about excuse me the
rear setback being small on those lots, especially where they have a large common
area. That is all I have to say.
Borup: Anyone else with comments.
Hatcher: I got two. To support Kent, I also feel that the 35 foot setback and the original
annexation should be maintained in our recommendation to City Council. The only
other issue is the I guess related to the 20 foot setback. That is the narrow private
road. If we go ahead and recommend that what’s proposed to us be passed on to City
Council, then I think that whether it is something that we can enforce because it is a
private road or highly recommend in the CC&R’s no on street parking. We’ve got this
road so narrow, we have all most no parking space for visitors other then the tenants
that live in these facilities. I can see all the visitors parking on the street and the street
is so narrow that your just going to have cars banging into cars. I don’t mean to offend
anybody but this is a senior community and I eye sights and distance just aren’t that
good. I think grandma is going to be bumping into cars. I can see a big problem with
what is currently proposed on that issue. That is the two I’ve got.
Borup: Mr. Barbeiro.
Barbeiro: I wish to concur with my two esteemed colleagues and having lived in a
retirement community where 1500 of the 15,000 people had daylight only drivers
licenses and all drive those where the wheels go on the back. I can see that problem
and I know we don’t have the right to enforce anything. I think Mr. Unger’s argument
was very convincing about the back line –(inaudible) lot 1 and making it much easier for
you as a property owner to enforce the maintenance of that, so I would concur that the
rear setback is not a concern. I wish to say again the 35 foot setback remain and I still
see a concern with trying to do the bonus density and include that as a 25 percent
reduction. I don’t believe the bonus density in this area were intended to be at 25
percent reduction in (inaudible) setbacks, so I would go along with the conditional use
permit
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
March 14, 2000
Page 43
END OF SIDE FOUR
Barbeiro: preliminary plat.
Borup: You say you would not—repeat your statement again.
Barbeiro: At this time I would recommend the conditional use permit, not recommend
the preliminary plat.
Borup: Any comments Sally?
Norton: I concur with the rest of the Commissioner's regarding the parking and very,
very short width of the street. I can just see an airplane looking down on that area and
see cars everywhere. I am also concerned about not having two car garages. 55 years
and older have a lot of vehicles, many of us do. I can see the neighbors, this is just
comments, that it’s something that they have relieved it seems to have a low profile
rather than high apartments. We just saw something come through here the last two
meetings with a similar proposal but the developer did reduce the number of units in
order to have some open space in there.
Hatcher: There is a potential here reconfiguring that 35 foot setback is going to require
some reconfiguring on the units. I would probably go with Tom moving the conditional
use permit forward but I think the preliminary plat needs to be reevaluated and
presented back before this body. Some of these units are going to have to be
readjusted to do that and at the same time I would recommend that the applicant look at
widening that road.
Brown: Real quickly I’d like to make—we always make negative comments. I would
like to make some positive ones before we get to the motion. The positive ones is that I
think that it is commendable that they are providing a handicapped accessibility and
that they are having at least a percentage of these units that make them handicapped
accessible including the cabinets and so forth and I think that is very commendable for
a developer/builder to do that in our city. I think that there are that they have done a lot
with a poor piece of property at the best. Any of these ditches I think our commission is
going to see more and more of them just like Boise is right now as the easy pieces of
property are disappearing and the hard ones are left. I think that they have done a fine
job. The concerns that we as Commissioner's have strictly have to do with backing up.
As I spend time working for the city of Boise and approving private streets on a general
basis until the City Council decided that was not acceptable and the highway district got
smaller street sections. These kind of developments, it becomes very difficult to pull
into your parking stall with any kind of vehicle, no matter what your age group is. It is
difficult to try to hit that parking stall you have to go clear to the other side of the road to
get in there and line up. At least with my driving capabilities that is what I have to do.
My wife has a floral business here in Meridian and I have to go into some of these units
occasionally and it is hard. Your shooting that gap. There is all ready cars there. It
definitely needs to not have any parking on the private street, in my opinion. I don’t
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
March 14, 2000
Page 44
know what an adequate width is but I would say at least another 5 feet. That is kind of
where I am at and my feelings about the additional width in the road. I think that might
make some things difficult in the preliminary plat, the preliminary plat is the next item for
us and we are on the conditional use permit. I am ready to make a motion if we are
done discussing it. Mr. Chairman, I would recommend approval of Item 3, conditional
use permit for proposed Heron Brook Townhomes Subdivision—40 lot townhouse
project on 3.98 acres in an R-40 zone by Pinnacle Engineers. I would recommend
approval per staff comments. I would ask that condition 6 be rewritten to require the 35
foot landscape buffer along Meridian Road as required by the annexation resolution or
ordinance. I would also ask that a part of that condition that the developer enter into a
license agreement and provide evidence to the planning department that they have
entered into a license agreement with the highway district to maintain that extra 18 feet.
I would ask that condition 4 –I really don’t know how to modify that one. We need the
20 foot setback or we need the 30 foot roadway. I don’t know how to put that in there.
Any suggestions from staff?
Borup: Any comment there Steve or just the way he said it.
Siddoway: I don’t know. I am just trying to –your talking about either requiring a 20 foot
setback—
Brown: I don’t know which to require. The 20 foot setback or that the private road be
30 feet. I think that if the road was 30 feet that what they are proposing is adequate.
They are—I think that if the road was 30 feet that the setback that they are proposing is
adequate. The road would have to be wider. Maybe that’s the recommendation that I
would make.
Siddoway: That is fine. I don’t have strong feelings one way or the other. The 30 feet
would be less land consuming for the applicant than requiring the 20 foot setbacks.
That is one thing to think about. The other thing I want to point out is that the
modification that you are adding on to these conditions are requiring a modification to
the plat and the number of lots. In the beginning of your motion was for a 40 lot
Subdivision. I don’t know, but it may need to be –
Brown: We can look at the Subdivision portion of it but the how it was noticed stated 40
lots and so – we modify condition 4 to request a waiver of the minimum 20 foot setback
but that we require a 30 foot private road with no parking and that it be posted with no
parking signs and that the curb and gutter be painted red.
Siddoway: Just so I understand because I am trying to take notes. You are proposing
allowing a waiver of the 20 foot setback to allow zero setbacks for those carports but
require 30 feet private street with no on street parking and designated as such.
Brown: That it be posted with signage and that the curbs be painted red.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
March 14, 2000
Page 45
Borup: Steve or Bruce do you remember a year or two ago we had private streets
reduced way reduced frontage the Lakes at Cherry Lane. Do you remember what the
widths of those streets were? The reason I bring it up, the requirement that we put on
that I believe was parking on one side of the street wasn’t it or am I thinking sidewalks
on one side of the street.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman I believe you thinking sidewalks on one side. We did allow
them to only have sidewalks on one side, but I believe there was a restriction for no
parking, no on street parking and I think that the width was 28 feet.
Hatcher: Even though we are asking for 30 feet that is still a narrow road and in
exchange for that we are eliminating the setbacks so I don’t think we should or we
shouldn’t allow parking on such a narrow road at all.
Borup: Someone comments made I wonder if there is a misunderstand that the
setback to the building itself is still 20 feet. So the solution there would be eliminate the
carport.
Brown: No, you don’t want to eliminate the carports. The carports are an advantage to
everyone. I think it is a innovative way of doing the—
Borup: Okay, do you want to summarize your motion a little bit or—
Brown: I am asking that condition 4 be modified to allow the waiver of the 20 foot
setback on the carports but that I require that the private street, as proposed, be
widened to 30 feet and that the street be posted with no parking and that the street
curbing be painted red for no parking and I ask the condition 6, I think I was clear on
that, but all the rest of staff recommendations and conditions as previously stated.
Barbeiro: Commissioner Brown, we also want to go along with the developers 4 to 5
foot rear setback, keeping in mind that he has that lot in the back as a common lot, so
we would recommend to City Council that the 4 to 5 foot average rear setbacks remain
as planned.
Brown: Correct, and that is per staff comments about they did not have a problem with
that.
Hatcher: With that said, I will second the motion.
Borup: We have a motion and second. All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: We do have one more item. Item number 4 open public hearing.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
March 14, 2000
Page 46
4. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 40 BUILDING
LOTS ON 3.98 ACRES FOR PROPOSED HERON BROOK TOWNHOMES BY
PINNACLE ENGINEERS, INC. – NE CORNER OF MERIDIAN ROAD AND
BLUE HERON LANE:
Borup: Steve have you got any other—
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, the applicant is requesting that the preliminary plat be tabled
2 weeks so he can do a redesign.
Borup: Put to April 3rd
.
Brown: I don’t think this is going to take a lot of time is it? It shouldn’t. I think we
hammered out all the issues.
Borup: I’d rather do it at a special meeting rather than run into another meeting that is
going to have a full agenda. I don’t know how you guys feel.
Siddoway: I have no further staff comments.
Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to make a formal request for continuance?
Unger: Just for the record, Bob Unger, Pinnacle Engineers. We would request a
tabling till the commission’s next available agenda so that we could make some
revisions to our preliminary plat based upon the commission’s comments on the
conditional use permit.
Brown: Mr. Unger. How soon are you going to have those so that staff can have a
review for us –can we commit to a day.
Unger: As soon as they feel that they need them, other than yesterday, just isn’t going
to happen. Give us Monday?
Brown: Is that acceptable Steve?
Siddoway: Yeah next Monday, I am just trying to think, if we continue this to the 3rd
that
is 2 weeks from yesterday? So Monday would be fine. That’s 3 weeks from yesterday.
That would be fabulous. That way we could do –we have time to do comments and
you’ll have—if there is any response that you—you’ll have time to review our comments
by then.
Borup: Mr. Brown, are you available on the April 3rd
. I asked this earlier. We do have
some Commissioner's that are going to be not available so then we will have a quorum.
Good. So the applicant asked for continuance of this hearing to our April 3rd
special
meeting.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
March 14, 2000
Page 47
Brown: I’d make that motion. Or first I’d ask that we close the public hearing. I move
that we continue this to April 3rd
.
Hatcher: Second.
Borup: Motion second continued to April 3rd
Special Meeting. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Do we have a time established on that. Is that a 6:30 meeting.
Siddoway: Modifications to Planning and Zoning by Wednesday the 22nd
.
Borup: Okay Commissioner's the one’s that are going to be here prefer a 6:30
meeting? Where this is a Monday meeting rather than Tuesday, we would definitely the
staff comments –
Norton: By Friday, so we can look at them over the weekend please.
Siddoway: If I can get his comments his plans by the 22nd
, you’ll have them well in
advance of that. I would like to get them to him so he could actually respond also
before then. Let me take a look at a calendar.
Borup: Did we vote on that motion. Yes we did, okay.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman I make a motion that we adjourn.
Norton: I second.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Meeting adjourned at 10:36.
(Tape on file of these proceedings)
APPROVED:
_______________________________
Keith Borup, Chairman Date
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
March 14, 2000
Page 48
ATTEST:
__________________________
William G. Berg, Jr., City Clerk